DOCSLIB.ORG

Singapore Judgments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Singapore Judgments IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2017] SGHC 215 Magistrate’s Appeal No 9308 of 2016 Between Amin Bin Abdullah … Appellant And Public Prosecutor … Respondent GROUNDS OF DECISION [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Appeal] [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Benchmark sentences] [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Principles] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Amin bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2017] SGHC 215 High Court — Magistrate’s Appeal No 9308 of 2016 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA and See Kee Oon J 9 May 2017 29 August 2017 Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court): Introduction 1 Under the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) (“the CPC”), certain categories of offenders are exempted from caning. The CPC also empowers the courts to enhance the imprisonment terms of such offenders in lieu of caning, by up to 12 months. Case law has not spoken with one voice on when an offender’s sentence should be enhanced in lieu of caning (“the enhancement question”), and if so enhanced, how the extent of such enhancement should be determined (“the duration question”). 2 These questions arose in the present appeal. At the conclusion of the oral arguments, we dismissed the appeal and gave brief reasons. We indicated that we would elaborate by furnishing detailed grounds for our decision. This we now do. In these written grounds, we provide guidance on both the enhancement Amin bin Abdullah v PP [2017] SGHC 215 question and the duration question. We first discuss the law and the current sentencing practice of the courts. We then set out the approach that should guide the courts in this context. We finally address the present appeal. Brief Facts 3 Amin Bin Abdullah (“the Appellant”) was convicted of one charge of trafficking in 13.23g of diamorphine, an offence under s 5(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act (Cap 185, 2008 Rev Ed) (“the MDA”) and punishable under s 33(1) of the MDA. He also pleaded guilty to one charge of possession of 0.27g of diamorphine, an offence under s 8(a) of the MDA and punishable under s 33(3) of the MDA. For the trafficking charge, he was sentenced to the mandatory minimum of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. For the possession charge, he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. 4 The Appellant was later certified by a medical officer to be permanently unfit for caning. The learned district judge (“the District Judge”) then enhanced the original sentence by 30 weeks’ imprisonment in lieu of caning. The Appellant appealed against this enhancement, contending that it was manifestly excessive. This required us to consider the applicable principles. Because we thought that the issues raised were somewhat complex, we appointed Mr Benjamin Koh Zhen-Xi (“Mr Koh”) as amicus curiae. We are deeply grateful for the extremely helpful submissions that he made. 2 Amin bin Abdullah v PP [2017] SGHC 215 The current state of the law An introduction to the relevant statutory provisions 5 There are three relevant categories of offenders who are exempted from caning: (a) All female offenders and male offenders aged above 50 at the time of caning: see s 325(1) of the CPC; (b) Offenders who are sentenced at the same sitting of the court to more than the specified limit of 24 strokes of the cane (in the case of an adult) or 10 strokes of the cane (in the case of a juvenile): see s 328(1) read with s 328(6) of the CPC; and (c) Offenders who are certified to be medically unfit for caning: see s 331 of the CPC. 6 We refer to these three categories of offenders collectively as “the exempted offenders”. 7 The CPC also empowers the court to enhance the sentences of exempted offenders by up to a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment. The relevant provisions are: (a) Section 325(2) of the CPC, for offenders exempted under s 325(1) of the CPC; (b) Section 328(2) of the CPC, for offenders exempted under s 328(1) of the CPC; and 3 Amin bin Abdullah v PP [2017] SGHC 215 (c) Section 332(2)(b) of the CPC, for offenders exempted under s 331 of the CPC. 8 While the latter provisions are drafted in similar terms, they have different origins which we trace below. Section 325(2) of the CPC 9 Section 325 of the CPC provides: Execution of sentence of caning forbidden in certain cases 325.—(1) The following persons shall not be punished with caning: (a) women; (b) men who are more than 50 years of age at the time of infliction of the caning; and (c) men sentenced to death whose sentences have not been commuted. (2) Subject to any other written law, if a person is convicted of one or more offences punishable with caning (referred to in this section as the relevant offences) but the person cannot be caned because subsection (1)(a) or (b) applies, the court may, in addition to any other punishment to which that person has been sentenced, impose a term of imprisonment of not more than 12 months in lieu of the caning which it could, but for this section, have ordered in respect of the relevant offences. (3) A court may impose a term of imprisonment under subsection (2) notwithstanding that the aggregate of such term and the imprisonment term imposed for any of the relevant offences exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for any of those offences. … 10 While the prohibition against caning the classes of persons set out in s 325(1) of the CPC has long existed, s 325(2) of the CPC is a relatively new provision. It was introduced when the present CPC came into force on 2 January 2011, vide Criminal Procedure Code (Commencement) Notification 2010 4 Amin bin Abdullah v PP [2017] SGHC 215 (S 776/2010). During the Parliamentary debates, the Minister for Law explained that the underlying rationale was to “give the Court discretion in exercising parity between co-accused persons, one of whom may be caned and the other may not” (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (18 May 2010) vol 87 at col 422 (K Shanmugam, Minister for Law)). 11 It should be noted, however, that even though the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the 1985 CPC”) did not specifically provide for the sentences imposed on this category of exempted offenders to be enhanced, the courts did from time to time impose higher sentences on accused persons on account of the fact that they could not be caned. We set out some of the key cases. Cases decided under the 1985 CPC 12 We begin with the 1991 decision of the Court of Appeal in Er Boon Huai and another v Public Prosecutor [1991] 2 SLR(R) 340 (“Er Boon Huai”). There, the appellant, a drug trafficker, was over the age of 50 and not liable for caning. The High Court imposed an additional three-year imprisonment term on the appellant on account of the exemption and sentenced him to 27 years’ imprisonment in total. The appellant’s co-accused, whose culpability was not dissimilar, received a sentence of 24 years’ imprisonment and 15 strokes of the cane. On appeal, the Court of Appeal set aside the additional three years’ imprisonment, reasoning as follows (at [11]): Section 231 [of the 1985 CPC] places the three categories of persons stated therein in a special position in that any provision in any law imposing a liability to caning would not be applicable to such persons. That being so, unlike the first appellant, the maximum penalty that the second appellant was liable for was therefore 30 years’ imprisonment (without any caning) and the minimum penalty was 20 years’ imprisonment (without any caning). The additional three years’ imprisonment imposed on 5 Amin bin Abdullah v PP [2017] SGHC 215 the second appellant in lieu of the caning cannot be justified as the second appellant, in the absence of any facts to distinguish his case from that of the first appellant’s, must be sentenced to the same term of imprisonment as the first appellant for this offence. [emphasis added] 13 Er Boon Huai has been interpreted in different ways. Some have understood it to mean that it proscribes the imposition of an enhanced sentence of imprisonment in lieu of caning: see Mallal’s Criminal Procedure (Noor Azman bin Adnan & James Selladurai Thanjong Tuan gen eds) (LexisNexis, 7th Ed, 2012) at para 1401. Others have seen it as standing for the proposition that an additional term of imprisonment in lieu of caning should not be ordered “in the absence of valid reasons”: see, for example, Kow Keng Siong, Sentencing Principles in Singapore (Academy Publishing, 2009) (“Sentencing Principles in Singapore”) at paras 30.054–30.055. 14 The authors of The Criminal Procedure Code of Singapore: Annotations and Commentary (Jennifer Marie & Mohamed Faizal gen eds) (Academy Publishing, 2012) suggest at para 16.142 that Er Boon Huai was legislatively overruled by the enactment of s 325(2) of the CPC, but this has not been judicially explored. It may be noted that Er Boon Huai was not referred to in the subsequent cases decided under the 1985 CPC, to which we now turn.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Opening of the Legal Year 2019
    ISSUE 01 • MAY 2019 OPENING OF THE LEGAL STATE COURTS TOWERS: FAMILY JUSTICE COURTS YEAR 2019: THE NEXT STRUCTURAL WORKS WORKPLAN 2019: CHAPTER IN OUR JOURNEY COMPLETED EVERY OUTCOME – A WAY FORWARD JUDICIARY TIMES • MAY 2019 02 HIGHLIGHTS OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2019: HIGHLIGHTS THE NEXT CHAPTER Opening of the Legal Year 2019: 01 The Next Chapter in Our Journey IN OUR JOURNEY State Courts Towers: 03 Structural Works Completed Family Justice Courts Workplan 2019: 04 Every Outcome – A Way Forward EVENTS & INITIATIVES State Courts Workplan 2019: 05 2020 and Beyond Supreme Court Strategic Compass 06 2019 - 2022 SICC Conference 07 Judicial Insolvency Network Meeting 07 The 2nd Asean Family Judges Forum 08 CAPS Dialogue with Family Service 08 Centres Family Mediation Symposium 09 State Courts Re-appoint Volunteer 09 Mediators The Executive Leadership Programme 10 Led by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, the Supreme Court Bench adorned their ceremonial robes to Counter-terrorism Exercise at the 11 herald the Opening of Legal Year on 7 January at the Supreme Supreme Court Court Auditorium. Invited guests from the legal community, including legal luminaries from abroad, were addressed by Free Food and Books Available in 11 Chief Justice, Attorney-General Lucien Wong, and Mr Gregory the Courthouse Vijayendran, SC, President of the Law Society, who took stock of the work done in the past year, and set out the directions ahead. Read the full response at: www.supremecourt.gov.sg/news/speeches/ NOTABLE VISITS 12 In his address, Chief Justice exhorted the legal community to shift their collective attention to prepare themselves for a Bringing the day’s event to a close, dramatically changing legal landscape that is being reshaped Chief Justice and Mrs Menon hosted WHAT’S NEW? 15 by three significant forces: globalisation, technology, and the the annual Judiciary Dinner at the growing commercialisation of the law.
    [Show full text]
  • 331KB***Administrative and Constitutional
    (2016) 17 SAL Ann Rev Administrative and Constitutional Law 1 1. ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THIO Li-ann BA (Oxon) (Hons), LLM (Harvard), PhD (Cantab); Barrister (Gray’s Inn, UK); Provost Chair Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore. Introduction 1.1 In terms of administrative law, the decided cases showed some insight into the role of courts in relation to: handing over town council management to another political party after a general election, the susceptibility of professional bodies which are vested with statutory powers like the Law Society review committee to judicial review; as well as important observations on substantive legitimate expectations and developments in exceptions to the rule against bias on the basis of necessity, and how this may apply to private as opposed to statutory bodies. Many of the other cases affirmed existing principles of administrative legality and the need for an evidential basis to sustain an argument. For example, a bare allegation of bias without evidence cannot be sustained; allegations of bias cannot arise when a litigant is simply made to follow well-established court procedures.1 1.2 Most constitutional law cases revolved around Art 9 issues. Judicial observations on the nature or scope of specific constitutional powers were made in cases not dealing directly with constitutional arguments. See Kee Oon JC in Karthigeyan M Kailasam v Public Prosecutor2 noted the operation of a presumption of legality and good faith in relation to acts of public officials; the Prosecution, in particular, is presumed “to act in the public interest at all times”, in relation to all prosecuted cases from the first instance to appellate level.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDICIARY TIMES - Issue 01
    JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 ISSUE 01 | MAY 2018 JUDICIARY TIMES Opening of Twelve Key Initiatives The Family Justice Legal Year 2018: Announced at Courts Workplan 2018: Towards a Future- State Courts In the Next Phase Ready Legal Sector Workplan 2018 1 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 CONTENTS ISSUE 01 | MAY 2018 01 03 04 OPENING OF JUDGES AND TWELVE KEY LEGAL YEAR 2018: INTERNATIONAL InitiatiVES Towards A JUDGES ATTEND ANNOUNCED at FUTURE-Ready SICC 2018 State Courts LEGAL Sector WORKPLAN 2018 05 06 07 International THE Family Court AND TRIBUNAL IT DEVELOPMENTS JUSTICE Courts Administrators AND ITS IMPACT WORKPLAN 2018: attend THE ON LAW IN THE NEXT PHASE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP ProGRAMME 2 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 07 08 08 SMU SCHOOL Volunteer TRAINING FOR OF LAW HOSTS Mediators newly recruited LUNCH FOR attend TRAINING Volunteer SUPREME COURT ProGRAMME Support PERSONS BENCH 09 09 10 State Courts State Courts THE JUDICIARY introduces launcH GIVES Back to DOCUMENTS-Only PHASE 2 SOCIETY process FOR OF THE CJTS CIVIL CASES 11-13 14 15 15 16 NotaBLE WHAT’S AWARDS & UPCOMING BEHIND THE VISITS NEW ACCOLADES EVENTS SCENES 3 JUDICIARY TIMES - ISSUE 01 HIGHLIGHTS OPENING OF LEGAL YEAR 2018: Towards A FUTURE - Ready LEGAL Sector The Opening of the Legal Year on 8 January was Chief Justice also highlighted the challenges ahead for marked by the traditional ceremony that took place the legal fraternity and the courts, which included in the morning at the Supreme Court Auditorium, the potential disruptive force of technology and the followed by the Judiciary Dinner held at the Istana.
    [Show full text]
  • Chief Justice's Foreword
    CHIEF JUSTICE’S FOREWORD As I have said on previous occasions, the Judiciary together with community partners, launched the is the custodian of the sacred trust to uphold first part of a Witness Orientation Toolkit to help the rule of law. To this end, it must not only hand prepare vulnerable witnesses for their attendance down judgments which are fair and well-reasoned, in court. Similarly, the Family Justice Courts worked but also ensure that justice is accessible to all, closely with the Family Bar to publish, earlier this for it is only by so doing that it can command the January, the second edition of The Art of Family trust, respect and confidence of the public. This Lawyering, which is an e-book that hopes to is indispensable to the proper administration of encourage family lawyers to conduct proceedings justice. in a manner that reduces acrimony between the parties, focuses on the best interests of the child, This One Judiciary Annual Report will provide an and conduces towards the search for meaningful overview of the work done by the Supreme Court, long-term solutions for families. the State Courts and the Family Justice Courts in 2018 to enhance our justice system to ensure that it On the international front, we continued to continues to serve the needs of our people. expand our international networks. Regionally, we deepened our engagement with ASEAN by playing host to a series of events involving the ASEAN legal community and will continue our outreach as Strengthening Our Justice System Both of Social Sciences School of Law to develop the I see through the rest of my term as President of The Road Ahead Within and Without law school’s curriculum and the design of its Legal the ASEAN Law Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Times Issue No. 3 December 2019
    ISSUE 03 • DEC 2019 LAUNCH OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND FAMILY JUSTICE – STATE COURTS THE CHANGING FACE “IT TAKES A HERITAGE GALLERY OF JUSTICE GLOBAL VILLAGE” DEC 2019 02 HIGHLIGHTS HIGHLIGHTS Launch of the State Courts Heritage 01 Gallery Technology and the Changing Face 03 of Justice Family Justice – 04 “It takes a global village” EVENTS & INITIATIVES Joint Judicial Conference 05 “The State Courts Heritage Gallery chronicles Mass Call 2019: Becoming a 05 our history and provides the opportunity to Profession of Learners commemorate our past and appreciate our present. Beyond Adjudication – State Courts 06 While we preserve our heritage in this gallery, we Impart Legal Knowledge to Enrich will continue our transformation journey to deliver the Community quality justice and serve society” Council of Asean Chief Justices 07 Presiding Judge of the State Courts, Working and Study Group Meetings Justice See Kee Oon 3rd International Advisory 07 Council Meeting 2019 International ODR Forum 07 The majority of the exhibits use interactive, technology-enabled features. These include a digital display of 15 high- profile cases heard in the State Courts over the last four decades, and a multi-user interactive table that chronicles Tri-court Training Workshop for 08 LAUNCH OF THE the locations of the past and present courthouses, highlighting some of their architectural features. Foreign Language Interpreters STATE COURTS One of the key highlights is the Heritage Courtroom, which is a mock-up of a courtroom in the old State Courts Transformation Week 08 Building with video displays that re-enact three criminal cases that were heard at different points in history.
    [Show full text]
  • Empirical Study on Appellate Intervention in Manifestly Excessive Or Inadequate Sentences in Singapore
    (2020) 32 SAcLJ 684 (Published on e-First 3 July 2020) EMPIRICAL STUDY ON APPELLATE INTERVENTION IN MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE SENTENCES IN SINGAPORE Once upon a time there was a judge named Goldilocks. She was scheduled to hear magistrate’s appeals in the afternoon. On her desk were the briefs for three different cases. She read the first file. “This sentence is manifestly excessive!” she exclaimed. Next, she read the second file. “This sentence is manifestly inadequate!” she lamented. At last, after reading the last file, she leaned back in her chair and smiled. “Ah!” she exclaimed, “this sentence is neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate and gives sufficient weight to both the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation and is proportionate to the gravity of the offence, having regard also to the personal circumstances of the offender”. In reality, unlike for Judge Goldilocks, it may not be as clear whether a sentence is manifestly excessive or inadequate, because the sentence might simply be on the high side (or low side) without warranting appellate intervention. This article surveys all reported appeals against sentence from 1990 to 2017 to provide an overview of when an appellate court will intervene in an appeal against sentence on the grounds of manifest excessiveness or inadequacy. LIM Wei Yang1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore). I. Introduction 1 Much has been said about achieving fairness and consistency in sentencing,2 in which appellate guidance and intervention is an indispensable ingredient. The appellate courts provide guidance and clarity in sentencing law and practice, and resolve incongruent, 1 This article was written as a directed research paper during the course of the author’s undergraduate studies under the guidance of Prof Kumaralingam Amirthalingam.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Response by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Opening
    RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2020 Monday, 6 January 2020 Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Honoured Guests, Members of the Bar, Ladies and Gentlemen: I. INTRODUCTION 1. It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Judiciary, to welcome you to this morning’s proceedings. I am especially grateful to the Honourable Prof Dr M Hatta Ali, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the Right Honourable Tan Sri Tengku Maimun binti Tuan Mat, Chief Justice of Malaysia, the Honourable Slaikate Wattanapan, President of the Supreme Court of Thailand, and our other guests from abroad for being with us this morning. 2. Over the past year, the Judiciary has been involved in a number of significant reforms in both its domestic and international fields of work. This morning, I will provide a broad overview of our progress and outline some anticipated 1 changes, before turning to some broader issues concerning the future of our profession. Let me begin by briefly reviewing the changes within the Judiciary. II. FELICITATIONS 3. Justices Pang Khang Chau, Audrey Lim, Ang Cheng Hock and Vincent Hoong were appointed as Judges of the High Court following their terms as Judicial Commissioners. We have also just welcomed Judicial Commissioner Mohan S/O Ramamirtha Subbaraman, who brings years of experience in admiralty practice as one of our first Senior Accredited Specialists in Maritime and Shipping law. These appointments will enhance the quality and the diversity of the Bench. 4. In addition to the extensions I foreshadowed in my Response last year, we retained the deep experience of Justices Woo Bih Li and Tan Siong Thye, each of whom has been re-appointed for a term of two years.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE COURTS WORKPLAN 2015: “Delivering Justice to the Community”
    STATE COURTS WORKPLAN 2015: “Delivering Justice to the Community” Friday, 24 April 2015 Keynote Address by The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, the Presiding Judge of the State Courts, the Hon Judicial Commissioner, Mr See Kee Oon, fellow Judges, ladies and gentlemen. INTRODUCTION 1. It gives me great pleasure to address you at today’s State Courts Workplan. Our theme this year, “Delivering Justice to the Community”, is especially apt as the Courts’ core mission is to serve the people of Singapore1 through an effective and accessible justice system. 2. This Workplan was originally meant to be held on 27 March 2015. That was in the midst of the National Period of Mourning after the demise of our founding Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and the PJSC and I decided to reschedule it to this morning. Given that context, I thought it would be appropriate to begin my address this morning by situating the work we do as Judges and Court Administrators within Mr Lee’s vision of the role of the courts and of the Judiciary in our country. In the aftermath of Mr Lee’s demise, we as a people, have had the occasion to reflect deeply on the unlikely journey we have made from our roots as a modest third world city to what we have become today. We have also had a number of discussions about how we might fittingly honour the memory of our founding fathers. But the point has been forcefully made by others that we would honour them most eloquently by remaining faithful and committed to the ideals that inspired them.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening of the Legal Year 2021 Speech
    RESPONSE BY CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2021 Monday, 11 January 2021 Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Honoured Guests, Members of the Bar, Ladies and Gentlemen: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On behalf of the Judiciary, I am delighted to welcome you to the Opening of this Legal Year. I am very grateful to all of you, including those from abroad, for taking the time to join us for today’s proceedings by way of video- conference. 2. The Opening of this Legal Year is historic in two senses at least. First, this marks the first time the Opening of the Legal Year is being hosted in the premises of the State Courts. Second, these proceedings, in common with many court hearings this past year, are being conducted using an internet- based remote conferencing platform. As routine as this might seem today, it would have been simply inconceivable just a year ago. This is a sign of the 1 far-reaching effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on nearly every aspect of our personal and professional lives. 3. Over the past year, we have all had to adapt rapidly in order to contend with the challenges foisted upon us by the pandemic. Amidst our collective efforts to cope with this, we were also confronted with a case that both of you, Mr Attorney and Mr Vijayendran, have spoken of, that seemed to challenge the foundations of our criminal justice system. As we look back on all this, I think it can safely be said that all of us have had a challenging year and the outlook is likely to remain somewhat difficult for the immediate future.
    [Show full text]
  • [2021] SGHC 182 Magistrate's Appeal 9754 of 2020 Betwee
    IN THE GENERAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2021] SGHC 182 Magistrate’s Appeal 9754 of 2020 Between Public Prosecutor … Appellant And Chong Chee Boon Kenneth … Respondent Magistrate’s Appeal 9755 of 2020 Between Public Prosecutor … Appellant And Nazhan bin Mohamed Nazi … Respondent Magistrate’s Appeal 9818 of 2020 Between Nazhan bin Mohamed Nazi … Appellant And Public Prosecutor … Respondent GROUNDS OF DECISION [Criminal Law] — [Appeal] [Criminal Law] — [Offences] — [Causing death by rash or negligent act] [Criminal Procedure and Sentencing] — [Sentencing] — [Appeals] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................1 FACTS...............................................................................................................2 THE UNDISPUTED FACTS..................................................................................2 SUMMARY OF THE PROSECUTION’S CASE AT TRIAL.........................................4 SUMMARY OF THE DEFENCES’ CASES AT TRIAL...............................................5 THE DECISION BELOW .....................................................................................6 THE PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ON APPEAL ...........................................8 THE PROSECUTION’S CASE..............................................................................8 LTA CHONG’S CASE ........................................................................................9 SWO NAZHAN’S CASE ....................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • OPENING of the LEGAL YEAR 2018 Speech by Attorney-General
    OPENING OF THE LEGAL YEAR 2018 Speech by Attorney-General, Mr Lucien Wong, S.C. Monday, 8 January 2018 Supreme Court Building, Level Basement 2, Auditorium May it please Your Honours, Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court, Introduction 1 2017 was indeed a momentous year for the Attorney-General’s Chambers (or AGC). It marked our 150th anniversary from the time Sir Thomas Braddell first took office as Attorney- General of the Straits Settlements in 1867. The leadership team at AGC has been humbled by the opportunity and privilege to lead AGC through such an important milestone in its history. 2 AGC occupies an important place in Singapore’s legal system. We all know that AGC has two key functions: (a) First, as Public Prosecutor. (b) Second, we are also the Government’s chief legal advisor. Our work impacts Singapore and Singaporeans. They are (after all) our ultimate clients. 3 AGC has played an instrumental role in building the foundations to Singapore’s legal system, especially since independence. For this, I must thank the former Attorney-General, V K Rajah SC, and his predecessors, some of whom are seated here this morning, for their efforts have collectively helped to mould the organisation into the premier legal institution that it is 1 today. Previous AGs have, on earlier occasions, described our work using the analogy of planting durian trees. It is apt for me to continue this imagery by stating that AGC, and Singapore in general, is reaping generous harvests from the seeds that each of the previous AGs have sown during their respective tenures (I dare say, of the “Mao Shan Wang” variety).
    [Show full text]
  • SAL Annual Report 2013
    ANNUAL REPORT 2013/14 Edge SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW Contents 02 03 05 Our Mission & Vision The President’s Review The Senate 07 11 The Executive Committee Leading Learning: Legal Knowledge 19 27 Leading Performance: Legal Industry Leading Change: Corporate Services 31 33 Key Executives Financial Review MCI (P) 028/10/2014 Our Mission & Vision VISION Singapore – The legal hub of Asia MISSION Driving legal excellence through thought leadership, world-class infrastructure and solutions. The Singapore Academy of Law (“the Academy”) is the promotion and development agency for Singapore’s legal industry. Our vision is to make Singapore the legal hub of Asia. We aim to drive legal excellence through developing thought leadership, world-class infrastructure and legal solutions. We do this by building up the intellectual capital of the legal profession by enhancing legal knowledge, raising the international profile of Singapore law, promoting Singapore as a centre for dispute resolution and improving the efficiency of legal practice through the use of technology. As a body established by statute, the Academy also undertakes statutory functions such as stakeholding services and the appointment of Senior Counsel, Commissioners for Oaths and Notaries Public. The Academy is headed by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon. We have over 10,000 members comprising members of the Bench, the Bar, Legal Service Officers, corporate counsel, legal academics and foreign lawyers. The President’s Review 2013 was a watershed year for the Singapore Academy of Law (“the Academy”). It marked 25 years of the Academy’s existence as a membership body of the legal profession in Singapore.
    [Show full text]